Semi-weekly south Kentuckian. [volume] (Hopkinsville, Ky.) 1883-1889, 1887-05-27
AypliIAl 5.alt blAASs.

The Court being sufficiently ad-
viscd delivered the following opinion
Bennettl.
The appellant, A. H. Anderson,
and the appellee; w. p. Winfree, were
the opposing candidates for the office
of County Judge of Christian county
at the August election 1885.
The election comparing board oil
the county found that the appellant,
Anderson, received 3,095 votes at said
election, for the office of County
Judge, and that the appellee, Winfree
received 3,065 votes for the same Of
flee, making majority Of 30 votes
for the appellant, Anderson, which
entitled him according to the face OF
the returns to a certificate of election,
which he received.
The appellee, Winfree, contested
the appellants rightto the office upon
the ground that a large number OF IL
legal votes were cast and counted for
the appellant at said election, that
some were not citizens of the State
some had not resided in the State q
sufficient length of time TO entitle
them to vote; some were non-resi-
dents of the county; some were non
residents of the several voting pre-
cinets in which they voted. He also
relied upon the fact that between
sixty and seventy persons voted for
the appellant in the two Hopkinsville
voting precincts who were non-resi-
dents of said district.
The appellant, Anderson, denied
these several grounds of challenge,
and alleged that large Illegal vote
was cast for the appellee at said cleo
ton, on substantially the same
grounds as those urged by the appel
lee.
The case was heard by the county
contesting board which decided that
SO of the votes cast for appellant at
the election were illegal. And also
decided that 90 of the votes cast for
appellee at said election were illegal.
And those respective numbers being
deducted from the whole number OF
votes cast for each candidate elected
the appellant by a majority of 10.
The appellee appealed TO the Cir
cult Court.
The case was deliberately prepared
iu the Circuit Court by both sides.
And the learned judge of that court,
after hearing all of the evidence in
the case by learned and exhaustive
opinion covering all of the questions,
both of law and fact, in the case, de-
cided that the appellant received only
3,044 legal votes at said election, the
81 cast for him being lille
gal; that the appellee received al
said election 3,047 legal votes the re-
naming is votes cast for him being
illegal; and that the appellee was
elected to the Office of county Judge
by majority 3.
From that judgment the appellant,
Anderson, has appealed to this court.
The appellants counsel complains
here first, that the lower court erred
in sustaining the challenge to the
votes of Warner Diuguid, and Jack
Smith, who voted for the appellant,
upon the ground that they had been
convicted and sent TO the
penitentiary of this State, upon
charge of grand larceny.
By section A, article s, of the State
Constitution, it is provided:
claws shall be made to exclude
from office and from suffrage those
who shall thereafter be convicted of
bribery, perjury, forgery, or other
crimes or high misdemeanors".
Persuant to this provision of the
Constitution, Chap. 33, Art. u, Sec
ton Is, of the General Statutes, de-
clares:
"Any person convicted of robbery,
forgery, counterfeiting or perjury, or
other like crime, shall forfeit his right
Of suffrage, and right to hold Office"
The contention of the appellant is
that the crime of grand larceny is not
like any of the crimes named in the
statute, not even that of robbery. We
cannot agree to this proposition.
Here follows lengthy discussion |
of the law point raised from which |
the following conclusion is drawn:
The several crimes enumerated in
the statute are of this class known as
Infamous crimes; and 1t is to be pre-
sumed that the expression, cor other
like crime" was intended to apply to
and embrace such other crimes as
are. likewise inconsistent with the
common principles of honesty and
humanity and convict the perpetra-
tor of depravity and moral turpitude.
The poll books showed that the
votes Of Carter, Croft and Glover
were recorded and counted for both
appellant and appellee, and that
Glover voted for the appellant. The
lower court deducted the two former
votes from the appellants vote and
counted them for the appellee, and
deducted the latter vote from the APP
pellee's vote and counted it for the
The elector, under the constitution
and laws of this state exercises his
sight of suffrage by a uiva uoce vote.
He proclaims openly at the polls in
the presence of the clerk and judges
of the election for whom he votes IL
is then the duty of the clerk in the
presence of the judges to record his
vote for that person. This duty is
not devolved upon the clerk as the
agent or representative of the elector
the elector has no right to record his
vote he can only announce for whom
he votes; it is then the duty of the
clerk to record 1t for that person as
an officer of the election. Now the
clerk by inadvertance or design
records the vote for another person
than the one announced by the cleo
tor. So by the record he has voted
for candidate against whom he had
in fact openly and unequivooally
voted. Now whose mistake Is this !?
The elector? No. Because he has
committed none, for when he an
nounced for whom he voted,
not intended TO vote, his act
was full and complete, it was all
that he could do. Then It was the
clerks mistake. The clerk, by this
has disfranchised the elector
for the time being, indeed worse, for
he has voted him without his knowl-
edge and against his will for candi-
late that he did not want and against
he had in fact voted. That
vote was not secretly deposited as by
ballot but proclaimed In the presence
Of at least four persons, and usually
in the presence of large crowd. 1t